DATE:
May 6, 2024
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. X.C. ("the Student")
HEARING DATE:
November 10, 2023, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Cheryl Woodin, Chair
Professor Paul Kingston, Faculty Panel Member
David Lio, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
William Webb, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Jia Wang, Counsel for the Student, Steinburg Law
IN ATTENDANCE:
The Student
HEARING SECRETARY:
Christopher Lang, Director, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
The Student was charged with two counts under section B.i.1(d) of the Code, for knowingly representing as their own idea an idea or expression of an idea of work of another in connection with an assignment and preliminary research paper in a course. In addition, the Student was charged under B.i.1(f) of the Code for submitting work knowing that it contained references to sources that had been concocted. In the alternative to each of the charges, the Student was charged with knowingly engaging in a form of cheating, academic dishonesty or misconduct, fraud or misrepresentation not otherwise described in the Code, contrary to section B.i.3(b) of the Code.
The hearing proceeded on the basis of an Agreement Statement of Facts (“ASF”). The ASF detailed how the Student, as part of the course, was required to write several assignments and papers. The Student was required to submit an assignment and preliminary research paper worth 10% and 15% of their final grade, respectively. With respect to the first assignment, the Professor of the course found that the Student had copied ideas and text in their answer near verbatim from an online source. The Professor subsequently reviewed the Student’s preliminary research paper submission and found that the Student copied ideas and the expression of ideas from several sources without attribution and had identified sources for passages in their work that were, in fact, taken from other sources that were not cited. The Student admitted to each of the charges laid by the Provost.
Based on the evidence provided in the ASF, the Panel was not able to conclude that the Student had concocted sources. The Panel noted that while the Student’s work contained passages that were improperly attributed to different sources from which they were taken, the sources in the paper were not concocted but rather misrepresented. Accordingly, the Panel determined that the alternative charge under section B.i.3(b) would be more appropriate than the charge for concoction under s. B.i.1(f). The evidence satisfied the Tribunal that each of the charges, except for the charge under s. B.i.1(f) had been made out.
In determining the appropriate sanction, the Panel considered the Student’s prior academic offences as well as a Joint Submission on Penalty (“JSP”) submitted by the Student and the University. The Student had committed two prior academic offences in different courses, namely, plagiarism and unauthorized assistance. The Panel further noted that the Student had committed the offences at issue in this case very shortly after acknowledging commission of the previous offences. The Panel heard submissions from the Student’s counsel regarding mitigating factors, including the fact that the Student had experienced a severe form of isolation and estrangement from society during the COVID-19 pandemic which had a significant impact on their ability to perform as a student. The Panel considered the Student’s circumstances to be a mitigating factor on sanction. The Panel proceeded to consider several sanctioning factors. With respect to character, the Panel noted that the Student had admitted the offences and cooperated with the University. With respect to the nature of the offence, the need for deterrence, and detriment caused to the University, the Panel reviewed a similar past Tribunal decision, University of Toronto and M.T. (Case No. 1391, December 16, 2022), for the proposition that plagiarism corrodes academic integrity at the University and undermines the relationship of trust between the University and its students. Finally, the Panel reviewed the penalties imposed by the Tribunal in previous cases involving similar facts, and concluded that the JSP, in light of all of the mitigating circumstances, was appropriate.
The Panel imposed the following sanction: a final grade of zero in the course; a four-year suspension from the University; a five-year notation on the Student’s academic record and transcript; and a report to the Provost for publication.